Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. Juxtaposing this understanding of the expression "qualifying examinations" into Regulation 3 of the Eligibility Regulations and applying it to the facts of the present case, Mr. T. Singhdev submits that, as the petitioner is an Indian citizen, she, before she joined the MD course with the DMSFI, was required to have passed one of the examinations envisaged in Regulation 4(4) of the GME Regulations or an equivalent examination from abroad. As she has done neither, Mr. T. Singhdev would submit that she was not eligible for admission to the MD course in Philippines at the time when she obtained such admission. In that view of the matter, he submits that the petitioner cannot claim a right to be issued an Eligibility Certificate for undertaking the FMGE to practice as a medical professional in India on the basis of the MD degree obtained by her from the DMSFI Philippines.

24. Responding to Mr. T. Singhdev's submissions, Mr. Sudhir Naagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relies on Regulation 4(2)(c)6 of the GME Regulations, under which a "pre- professional/pre-medical examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology", undertaken "after passing either the higher secondary school examination, or the pre-university or an equivalent examination" and which includes "a practical test in Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Bio-technology and also English as a compulsory subject", is regarded as a qualifying examination to entitle a candidate to undertake the NEET for admission to an MBBS course in India.

28. Mr. Naagar further submits that the petitioner is willing to undergo the one year internship as required by the Public Notices dated 25 March 2022 and 22 November 2023 issued by the NMC after undertaking the FMGE, before being entitled to practice as a medical professional.

Mr. Singhdev's submissions in reply

29. Responding to Mr. Naagar's reliance on Regulation 4(2)(c) of the GME Regulations, Mr. T. Singhdev seeks to juxtapose the said sub-regulation with Regulation 4(2)(a). He submits that an examination, in order to qualify as a "pre-medical examination", for the purposes of Regulation 4(2)(c), has to be undertaken "after passing either the higher secondary school examination, or the pre-university, or an equivalent examination". The BS examination undertaken by the petitioner could not qualify as a pre-medical examination for the purposes of Regulation 4(2)(c), as it was not undertaken after passing a higher secondary school examination or any equivalent examination. For this purpose, Mr. Singhdev relies on Regulation 4(2)(a), which refers to a "higher secondary examination.....which is equivalent to 10 +2 higher secondary examination, after a period of 12 years study". The secondary school examination cleared by the petitioner in 2010- 2011, having not been preceded by 12 years' study, and not having been declared as equivalent to the 10+2 higher secondary examination, he submits, that the BS course cannot qualify as a pre- medical examination for the purposes of Regulation 4(2)(c).

31. In the context of these submissions, Mr. T. Singhdev seeks to place reliance on paras 2, 3, 11 to 15, 19 and 21 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences v. Srikeerti Reddi Pingle9, as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rohinish Pathak v. Medical Council of India10 and of a learned Single Judge in Iulha Malafeeva v. U.O.I.11.